Re: [ga] Starting From The Top -- The Supporting Organisations

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Patrick and all assembly members,

Patrick Corliss wrote:

> Hi Sandy
>
> Thanks for your interesting email.
>
> I have just written privately to an influential figure in the ICANN world.
> As the argument raised was quite valid, and my response was quite
> considered, I should share it with you.  The initial response was in reply
> to my previous email (indicated with > > ).
>
> > > I'd like to see the ASO and PSO merged into a Technical Supporting
> > > Organisation (TSO).  That would include all the telcos, ISPs and
> > > other infrastructure.
> >
> > The PSO really ought to be replaced by a CTO (Chief Technical Officer) and
> > its board seats eliminated.
>
> That's the same thing really.  By merging the ASO and PSO, the influence of
> the PSO becomes very minor.  It could easily be just a Technical Office
> somewhere.

  The problem with this Patrick is that the ASO and the PSO are not
a good match for merging.  The ASO and the DNSO would be.
And than the PSO as you indicate would become very minor.

>
>
> > The ASO has a real role - address allocation is a very arcane issue and
> > one with significant economic and technical overtones.  But the ASO needs
> > to be vastly expanded to permit meaningful participation by entities other
> > than the regional IP address registries.
>
> My point, which I think you have agreed with, is that technical issues
> cannot be carried out in isolation.  I look at mailing lists like
> [namedroppers] and think that, lurking behind the technical issues, are
> hard nosed ISPs and telcos.  And very many other technical people.

  Yes there are some hard nosed ISP's and telco's as well as
many technical people.  However they are not the crux of the
ICANN problems from a structure standpoint.  Rather it is
the fact that the technical faction of the ICANN is not in
complete agreement with the BoD on a policy level as well
as several fractions within the technical folks.

>
>
> I see the internet as one big piece of engineering infrastructure being used
> by people (who don't necessarily have technical knowledge) for purposes like
> business, games, downloading music, collecting money for charity,
> communicating information with others, politics, etc. etc.

  Yes and this is too broad a view really.  The internet has several
independent parts that interface and different uses for those
are being developed on a regular basis.

>
>
> This dichotomy is so stark, in my mind, that it permeates the whole system.
> It is demonstrated every time a "user" goes into an "isp" for service or
> advice.  You have said:
>
> > I don't like drawing lines about who ought to participate and who may not
> > - my preference is for letting people self-label themselves and aggregate
> > (or not) according to their self-perceived needs of the moment.  That's
> > normal politics.
>
> There are several problems with that proposition.  Imagine a school
> teacher coming along and artificially dividing a big group of children into
> two groups.  Lets call them "kids" and divide them into "boys" and "girls"
> for convenience.  The teacher then invests a lot of authority and effort in
> keeping these two group separated.  Let's call that "segregation".
>
> After a while, perhaps many years, smarter kids will start to realise that
> these divisions are arbitrary and unfair.  Then they will start to organise.
> But first they have to start by educating people as to what is wrong with
> the system.  And because they have been brought up that way, it is not an
> easy task to convince people there is a better way.
>
> Meanwhile the teacher is still keeping the two groups segregated making
> communication harder.  Eventually after much effort, kids start getting the
> idea that boys and girls can play together.  Then they need to develop
> political structures to overcome the current system.  Unless they feel very
> aggrieved, most kids will see it as too much trouble saying "oh well, it
> works well as it is, let's just leave it alone".
>
> And the present system wins by default.  Just look at apartheid in South
> Africa.  In fact, I remember when (in November 1965)  Ian Smith declared UDI
> in Rhodesia because he refused to allow "blacks" to share power with
> "whites".
>
> Of course, Zimbabwe is now ruled by a ruthless dictator and ex-terrorist,
> Robert Mugabe.  Which brings up the other tool used by those in authority.
> That changing the system will lead to anarchy, chaos and disorder.  This is
> sometimes true.  But it is an unfair characterisation in most cases.
>
> Another problem that comes to mind is that the developers of the new system
> have to argue among themselves to prove their case.  Whatever one person
> suggests, another person will destroy.  Neither of them say "Is your
> proposal better than the CURRENT system?".  No, they say "Is your propoposal
> as good as some notional, pie in the sky, idealistic system?".
>
> If you don't think so, just look at the history of the individuals in IDNO
> etc.  Meanwhile time passes and nothing gerts done.  Just look how hard
> people like Martin Luther King and the whole civil rights movement had to
> struggle.  Or how long Nelson Mandela spent in jail fighting apartheid.
>
> There is a dumb story about a person in London.  Some tourist came up to
> him and asked him how to get to a certain destination.  His answer was
> "Well if I was going there, I wouldn't start from here".  That's my view
> too.
>
> That is also my deciding argument.  There is a need for change in the
> ICANN structure.  It is better for that change to start from somewhere
> else.  Not from where we are at the moment.  So let's change the deckchairs
> and start again.

  ICANN will eventually become irrelevant unless or until as a organization
it decides to change itself.  Timing is also important here too.  The old IANA
also faced this same crossroads several years ago.  And it also became
irrelevant by in large as a result of failing to make transitions that the
Internet community were making despite the IANA's policies.  ICANN
can avoid this yet, but that window of opportunity is fairly narrow now
and narrowing quickly.

>
>
> > Carving people up into pre-designated "stakeholder" groups creates the
> > kind of unworkable situations we have today in ICANN.
>
> No for two reasons.  One is that my proposal for two supporting
> organisations (hardware and software, or physical and logical, or
> engineering and business) so closely matches with the underlying
> reality that you will see it in any science book you pick up.  Try one
> on DNA, for example, or astronomy.
>
> The other is that, with a bit of effort, we could make the structure
> flexible.  Then the people involved could reorganise themselves.
>
> Best regards
> Patrick Corliss
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html